Here's Why Trump's Ukraine Strategy Is Better Than Biden's
JD Vance Didn't Hold Back on Bolton, Ukraine, and Crime in This Interview
Armed and Deployed: Trump’s National Guard Crackdown in D.C. Sends Clear Warning to...
Nine Days, Zero Murders: Trump’s D.C. Crackdown Delivers Results
Arizona Charges 170 in Immigration Sweep
CNN Admits the Brutal Truth: Democrats Are Bleeding Voters
Trump Will Send Troops to Baltimore if It Needs Help
Chinese Scammer Sentenced to 24 Months in Prison
DeSantis Defends Removal of Rainbow LGBT Crosswalk
Boston Cops Defy Left-Wing Mayor Michelle Wu, Secretly Aid ICE in Arresting Criminal...
Vivek Ramaswamy Surges Ahead in Ohio Governor's Race
FBI's 'Summer Heat' Initiative Under Trump to Make the U.S. Safe Again
California’s Homeless Crisis: Two Decades of Empty Promises Under Newsom’s Watch
When Envy Becomes a Political Weapon
Socialist Zohran Mamdani’s Muscle Showdown Falls Flat as Social Media Roasts His Bench...
Tipsheet

Clarence Thomas Grills Attorney In Trump Case for Disqualification Examples

Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas demanded answers from an attorney who voted in favor of kicking former President Trump off the primary ballot, citing an insurrection clause that dates back to the Civil War.

Advertisement

This week, attorney Jason Murray challenged Trump’s eligibility to appear on the 2024 presidential election ballot, claiming that under Section Three of the 14th Amendment, he should not be allowed to run for office if he incites an “insurrection.” 

In response, Thomas demanded Murray provide “contemporaneous examples” to support his claim that Trump should be banned from the primary ballot. 

Murray said he thought it was “not surprising that there are few examples” because, at that time, “candidates were either write-in or they were party ballots, so the states didn’t run the ballots in the same way, and there wouldn’t have been a process for determining before an election whether a candidate was qualified, unlike the processes that we have now,” referring to 1868 congressional election in Georgia. 

The Supreme Court Justice argued that Murray’s argument fell short of “the adoption of the 14th Amendment, where the states disqualified national candidates — not its own candidates.”

During the Reconstruction era, Thomas explained, there would still be a “plethora of Confederates still around” who might run for state or national offices and “a few examples of national candidates being disqualified, if your reading is correct.”

Advertisement

Murray once again claimed some national candidates were “disqualified by Congress refusing to seat them,” to which Thomas reminded the attorney that the case pertains to states disqualifying national candidates.

The anti-Trump attorney failed to list examples of his argument, claiming that it was because “elections worked differently” in the 19th century. 

“States have a background power under Article II in the 10th Amendment to run presidential elections,” Murray said, adding that they did not “use that power to police ballot access until about the 1890s” when “everyone had received amnesty, and these issues had become moot.”


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement